Monday, November 28, 2011

Every once in a while during a commercial break on the CKNW Bill Good Show, I suggest that it might be a good idea to briefly discuss Community Amenity Contributions (CAC's) and how they are determined. In suggesting this, I know that in a matter of seconds, Frances Bula will reply that this is not something the public either understands or is interested in, and I know she's right. But I keep going on about the matter since it is something of great importance to every real estate developer or land owner who wants to rezone property in Vancouver, and an increasing number of neighbouring municipalities.

CAC's are how municipalities are financing growth. They are contributions made by developers who are successful in obtaining rezonings. The current city policy is that they be approximately 75% of the increase in land value upon rezoning. I think this is wrong, for reasons set out below.

I am not opposed to the city demanding money from developers who successfully rezone land. However, I believe the amounts should be predetermined, based on the cost of providing services, and what will be economically viable....to the extent that they are not so great that they disuade a developer from seeking a rezoning.

Why do developers seek rezonings? Because, and I say this advisedly.....the city oftentimes does not zone land for its most appropriate form of development, so that developers will be encouraged...that word should be in quotations....to come forth with rezoning applications, during which he/she and the city can negotiate the appropriate CAC. I refer to it as "let's make a deal".

While the City of Vancouver is confident that it is legally acceptable that CAC's be 'extracted' in return for rezonings, other jurisdictions are not. Therefore, they require the developer to sign a letter that says the CAC's are a voluntary 'gift', not an extraction! I'm not making this up!

So today, Brent Toderian, the very articulate and forceful Director of Planning spoke to the Urban Development Institute. There was a large audience. Prior to his talk, I suggested that I hoped he would include the topic of CAC's in his talk, and he assured me he would.

His presentation was very good, and when it was over, the moderator asked for questions. Not surprisingly, no one asked a question, so not surprisingly, I did. (In fact, Brent assured his table that I would be the first person to ask a question!)

I asked Brent why the city thought it was a good idea for CAC's to be based on appraised land lift, rather than related to the cost of providing services. (Had I had the time, and wanted to make a speech, I would have added that it is oftentimes difficult to determine the 'lift', and this creates much too much uncertainty for all parties.)

Michael, Brent replied, if the CAC's were tied to the cost of providing services, they would be much higher, and not affordable. A very cute answer!

So tonight I sent Brent an email, which I am reprinting below. I'll welcome any comments.

Brent, as I mentioned after your talk, I thought it was a very good presentation that you made to UDI today. I really look forward to comprehensive plans for the DTES and the city as a whole.

I do want to very briefly explain why I keep harping on the question of whether it's better to base CAC's on land lift, or a predetermined CAC that is both reflective of the cost of providing amenities, while still acknowledging the economics of new development.

Following the session, one of the city's appraisers who was in attendance sent me a note. He said (with a gleam in his eye) that he agreed with the city's position, noting that "if you get the right appraiser, the city's approach can work to the developer's advantage".

My response to him was that this was why I was so concerned. I don't want the city to continue to pursue a system, the success of which is partially dependent on who is the developer's appraiser!

As I mentioned to Larry Beasley following the session, sometimes it takes three appraisals before the city and developer can agree on the CAC amount. Larry said, well that's just an issue of 'process'. It isn't. It's a problem because in many of the situations being encountered with new rezonings, we really don't know what the fair market value of land is upon rezoning. As I asked Larry, what is the value on a square foot basis for a mid-rise building on Cambie Street? What is it? Do you know? We don't know. Grover Elliot doesn't know. Burgess Cawley doesn't know. Altus doesn't know. None of the appraisers really know, and won't know for a few years.

I will argue that this will also be a problem for the first back to back stacked townhouses on rezoned single family land in Mt Pleasant; street rowhousing off Dunbar; or coach houses for sale in various parts of the city. None of us really know what land will be worth for these specific uses upon rezoning. Indeed, in my West Van project I honestly don"t know if the coach houses are worth more per square foot than duplexes. And for what it"s worth, the appraiser doesn't really know either.

So that's why I don't think appraisals are really the way to go.

And as for my suggestion that the CAC's be based on the cost of providing services, I obviously wouldn't suggest that the entire cost be covered. Indeed, as we have discussed, if the CAC is too high, the land won't be rezoned. This nearly happened in West Van and is currently happening in Oakridge where I understand single family homes are proceeding on lands that should be multi-family.

Friday, November 25, 2011

A week ago today, while Vancouver area politicians and backroom politicos were trying to squeeze out a few more votes, the following article appeared in the Vancouver Sun. Now that the election is over, it's hopefully time to focus on how best to create affordable housing in our region.

Over the coming months, I plan to promote a number of different ideas, especially higher density single family housing, and a variety of lower density multi-family forms. In the meanwhile, here are some thoughts on what the politicians were proposing. Now that we know the outcome of the election, it's time to get to work and realize some of the campaign promises!

Affordable housing a difficult goal

Municipal governments can't bring it about on their own, so election promises on the issue will be hard to keep

By Michael Geller, Vancouver SunNovember 18, 2011

In the leadup to Saturday's municipal election, two topics have been dominating the daily news: Occupy Vancouver and affordable housing. As someone who has spent four decades in the public and private sectors designing and building affordable housing, I would like to offer answers to often asked questions.

What is "affordable housing?" Although this term is bandied about, it is generally misunderstood. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. defines affordable housing as that which consumes no more than 30 per cent of disposable income. On this basis, most Vancouverites are in need of affordable housing, although for many, the need is much more severe.

Can municipal governments create affordable housing? Recently, a reporter asked me to comment on the Non-Partisan Association radio ad in which mayoral candidate Suzanne Anton advocates creating a city where her children can afford to live: "Can municipal politicians really do much about affordability or is Anton just blowing smoke?"

The price of housing is a function of supply and demand and municipal politicians can affect both. Ironically, as Vancouver becomes more attractive and livable, more people will come here, thus pushing up prices. In theory, if supply increases, prices should come down. However, as many have observed, while thousands of condos have been built around the region, they too are expensive, especially compared to other North American cities.

So why is new housing so expensive? It is important to look at both the cost to create housing and the price at which it is sold. Cost components include land, materials, labour and soft costs (financing, municipal fees, etc.) However, another factor is developer profit, which is often a function of development risk.

In recent years, a Vancouver requirement that developers rezoning land pay community amenity contributions equal to 75 per cent of any increase in land value has increased development risk. Consequently, while certain developers remain in Vancouver hoping their relationships and negotiating skills will result in approvals, many others are leaving for Surrey, Burnaby and other places where the approval process is more certain. Meanwhile, as the number of new projects is limited, developers can and will charge higher prices.

What has Vision Vancouver been doing about this? Mayor Gregor Robertson has focused on two housing issues: sheltering the homeless and increasing market rental housing through the Short Term Incentives for Rental (STIR) program, which has fasttracked approvals and in some cases granted density bonuses or waived amenity contributions. Some projects are successfully underway. However, others have stalled because of community opposition. Some believe this is due to the program being rushed without approved density-bonus guidelines in place. Ironically, this failure has led to the creation of a new political party in Vancouver, Neighbourhoods for Sustainable Vancouver, which advocates more community involvement in decision-making.

All agree that STIR can create market housing, but not social housing. Surprisingly, while the Vision Vancouver council voted to retain very expensive social housing at Olympic Village, it has not insisted on the inclusion of social housing within some recently approved large projects.

Are emergency shelters a good idea? Vision Vancouver has reduced street homelessness. However, this has generally been achieved by opening new shelters. While they are a quick solution, they provide a very low standard of accommodation at a very high price, in the order of $2,800 per person per month! Many housing experts believe that in future, more cost-effective solutions must be pursued.

What is the NPA's housing platform? The party argues the best way to create rental housing and more affordable ownership housing is to rely on the private sector to increase supply without developer giveaways. It also argues for more certainty in the zoning process by requiring the public sector to zone land, rather than obligate private developers to come forward with rezoning applications. I agree with these approaches. However, on their own, they will not result in affordable housing for lower income households that will continue to require subsidies from other levels of government. Alternatively, the city could encourage the private, public and non-profit sectors to collaborate on a reduced number of social housing units without government subsidies.

What about council candidates Adriane Carr and Sandy Garossino's propositions? Carr (Green party) has advocated that the city should encourage the federal government to reintroduce tax policies to encourage investment in rental housing. No one can argue with this. Indeed, the reason so many rental buildings were built in the past was due to federal tax incentives no longer in place. Carr has also advocated a review of property tax policies as they relate to changing areas like Cambie Street. She's right again. Otherwise, Cambie merchants and homeowners will be forced to vacate their neighbourhood.

Garossino (independent) has raised questions about the impact of foreign investment on the cost of housing in Vancouver and the need for some controls. While this warrants further discussion, it is not something the city can address on its own; nor do I advocate any such controls.

In conclusion, municipal governments can play an important role in delivering more affordable housing. However, they cannot do it on their own. They need to collaborate with the private sector and other levels of government. For this reason, I do not believe the promises to build thousands of new affordable units, nor should you.

Instead, on Saturday, I will be voting for politicians who have a realistic understanding of the issues and the appropriate role of a municipal government. I will also support those candidates who will spend money wisely. Otherwise, an increasing number of people may be sleeping in tents three years from now.

Michael Geller is a Vancouver architect and developer. He is a former CMHC program manager for social housing.

Monday, November 21, 2011

Saturday night was an evening of mixed emotions. On one hand, some of the candidates around the region who I wanted to see win, didn't. On the other hand, most did win. To those who won , my sincerest congratulations. To those who didn't win, thanks for putting your name forward in the expectation that you'd be undertaking a lot of work,and taking a lot of abuse, for very little compensation!

I was quite happy not to be a candidate this time around, and was flattered to be asked by The Vancouver Sun, CKNW and CBC radio and television to participate in their election night coverage. Quite a change from '08 when I watched the results coming in with my family and friends, jockeying for the 10th spot, only to be defeated by the hard working former Councillor Ellen Woodsworth. Sadly for her, this year she knows how it feels to just come close!

A number of people have asked me what I think went wrong for the NPA. While I was not part of the campaign team, I did speak regularly with some of the Council candidates, and offered a few ideas and suggestions with respect to the housing and development platform. I also questioned some aspects of the campaign.

In reviewing the outcome, it is obvious two things happened. Yes, NPA lost the election; but Vision also won the election. As the very successful NPA fundraising chair Rob Macdonald pointed out, Vision was much more organized since it had been preparing for this election for three years. The NPA, on the other hand, has been relatively inactive for most of this time.

I discovered this in fall '09 when I suggested the party should organize an event on the one year anniversary of the previous election to review what had transpired in the intervening 12 months. The NPA declined for lack of resources. I therefore decided to organize my own retrospective event with the assistance of Gordon Price and Bob Ransford. With participation by ThinkCity, Frances Bula, Jim Green and others, many thought it was worthwhile, and NPA subsequently announced that it would organize similar events on various themes in the future. Unfortunately, they never happened.

One reason these and other events didn't happen is tied to the fundamental question of whether the NPA is an ongoing political party, or a political organization that gets together once every three years to nominate candidates.

Immediately after the last election, I received a lovely handwritten note from May Brown who suggested that if the NPA was to compete with the extremely well-organized Vision, it would have to become a well-organized party too. I know she shared this opinion with others within the NPA, but no real organizational structure was put in place. There wasn't even an Executive Director! While there was a later conversation about whether to change the name and party structure, nothing really happened until earlier this year when the campaign got underway.

This year's campaignLed by the respected Peter Armstrong, and aided by Macdonald's fundraising expertise, and the Pace group's Norman Stowe, NPA was first off the mark with campaign radio ads. While I was expected to defend them on my weekly CKNW Civic Affairs Panel discussions, I and many others were troubled by the negative, attacking tone from the start. When I privately questioned NPA operatives on this, I was told that the first half of the campaign had to be negative, but the second half would be more positive, focussing on what the NPA was going to do. "When you're so behind in the polls, you have to go negative" I was told.

While I was uncomfortable with the ads each time I heard them, I was surprised to see the messaging seemed to resonate with many voters who enjoyed the campaign team's mocking of bicycle lanes, front yard wheat and backyard chickens. I did think it was right to criticize the city's proposal to set up and operate a "Rent Bank", but as Frances Bula pointed out on CKNW, at the time this was not a serious proposal.

Throughout the campaign, many NPA supporters told me they too were uncomfortable with the negative messaging and wanted to hear what an NPA Mayor and Council would do, rather than the constant whining (yes they often used the word whining)about Vision's past activities. In response, Suzanne Anton started to point to the streetcar proposal, the relocated Art Gallery, and the Red Tape Commissioner as positive initiatives.

In fact there were Vision decisions that I thought the NPA should have and could have criticized, including decisions related to the Olympic Village Social Housing and marketing, the limited success of the Greenest City initiative when it came to new jobs, the administration of the STIR program, and some of the questionable development approvals. However, the criticism had to be accompanied by what the NPA would do better.

Do I think a different kind of messaging would have changed the outcome? I don't know. Probably not. As Sam Sullivan and others have noted, incumbents always have a significant advantage in any election. What I do know is some very good candidates who should have won, didn't. Most notable are Sean Bickerton, who worked so very hard for three years on behalf of his community, and Mike Klassen. While each offered a very different style, I wanted to see both elected. I do congratulate Affleck and Ball, and am pleased an increased number of Park and School Board candidates were successful.

(Not to take anything away from Affleck and Ball's victory, I do think it's time to reconsider the design of ballots so that the ABC's do not have such an advantage. I propose different ballots with the names rotated, so that each candidate has his or her name on top approximately an equal number of times.)

Slate voting is for dummiesAs readers of this blog know, I do not advocate slate voting. Indeed, even while I was an NPA candidate, I voted for Vision candidates Deal, Meggs and Louie. This year I declared I would be voting for strong Vision candidates and I did. They all won!

I also supported the Green's Adriane Carr and Stuart Mackinnon. Sadly, the very dedicated and caring Mackinnon was not successful, but Carr was. While I do not know her well, and some people questioned why I supported her, I'm expecting her to be a positive addition to Council.

I also supported Sandy Garossino who by many accounts was a very bright, community spirited person. I didn't expect her to win, but predicted she'd get 25,000 votes. She got just over 20,000. An impressive showing for an independent.

So what comes next?So now the hard work begins. The mayor has reiterated his promise to end homelessness by 2015. I personally don't think you can end homelessness, but there is a lot that can be done. This includes addressing mental illness and addictions. While the focus has been on opening more shelters during the past three years, I'm hoping for a more comprehensive strategy in the coming years.

Another key housing issue is how best to encourage alternative forms of housing in Vancouver. These include townhouses and stacked townhouses that could appeal to young families seeking an alternative to apartments. Many empty nesters and seniors, wanting to move out of single family homes, are also seeking new housing choices. These could include smaller lot singles, duplexes, triplexes, and clustered housing in their neighbourhoods. I also advocate laneway housing that can be sold, not just rented, similar to Hollyburn Mews, my project about to get underway in West Vancouver. I'll be writing more about this in the months to come.

So it's time to get to work. Again, congratulations to those who won election Saturday night. And to the 65% of residents who didn't bother to vote, that's your right. But I don't want to hear you complaining!

Thursday, November 17, 2011

Three years ago, just before Election Day, after listening to all the promises being made during the election campaign, someone sent the following story to me. I thought it summed up the election campaign very well. I also think it applies equally to this year's campaign, given the promises made about affordable housing, ending homelessness, etc. Let me know what you think.

The most eye-opening civics lesson I ever had was while teaching third grade this year.The presidential election was heating up and some of the children showed an interest.I decided we would have an election for a class president.We would choose our nominees. They would make a campaign speech and the class would vote.To simplify the process, candidates were nominated by other class members.We discussed what kinds of characteristics these students should have.We got many nominations and from those, Jamie and Olivia were picked to run for the top spot.

The class had done a great job in their selections. Both candidates were good kids.I thought Jamie might have an advantage because he got lots of parental support.I had never seen Olivia's mother.The day arrived when they were to make their speeches Jamie went first.He had specific ideas about how to make our class a better place.He ended by promising to do his very best.Everyone applauded.He sat down and Olivia came to the podium.

Her speech was concise.She said, "If you will vote for me, I will give you ice cream."She sat down.The class went wild. "Yes! Yes! We want ice cream."She surely would say more.She did not have to.A discussion followed.How did she plan to pay for the ice cream?She wasn't sure.Would her parents buy it or would the class pay for it.She didn't know.The class really didn't care.All they were thinking about was ice cream.

Jamie was forgotten.Olivia won by a land slide.All candidates running for office offer ice cream. Fifty percent of the people react like nine year-olds.They want ice cream.The other fifty percent know they're going to have to feed the cow and clean up the mess.

Sunday, November 13, 2011

So here are some more names of people I plan to vote for, or am seriously considering as we approach Election Day 2011...Park Board

In addition to supporting Stuart Mackinnon, Gabby Kalaw and John Coupar, I also plan to vote for Constance Barnes-Vision Vancouver. I first met Constance during the '08 election and she was always very gracious, despite the fact that I was 'on the other team'. I'm told that she's hard working, honest, passionate and worthy of re-election.

It's difficult for me to support other Vision candidates since I'm disappointed with many of the Board's decisions over the past three years, especially the decisons with respect to Bloedel Conservatory and the Children's Farm.

Over the past few years I have got to meet other NPA candidates for Park Board. DavePasin is a hard working, community spirited guy, as is Casey Crawford and Jason Upton. I believe both are deserving of close attention and would be good additions to the board. I have known of Melissa de Genova since she was a young girl. If you want a youth advocate, she certainly fills the bill.

Over the past week I have been communicating with a very interesting lady who's an Independent Candidate for Park Board. Her name is Freyja Pri Toor and her website is

http://www.PriforParks.com/ I have never met her, but based on her website and past experience, she strikes me as a very qualified independent candidate. I may well vote for her.

I met Jamie Lee Hamilton during the past election and we have kept up a conversation on various issues. The Queen of Parks would love to be on Park Board, and I'm happy to try and help her realize this ambition.

School Board

I still need to learn more about other School Board candidates. While I have briefly met FraserBallantyne and Stacy Robertson of the NPA, I would welcome advice from those of you who know them and other good candidates.

Council

In my first blog posting I supported Sean Bickerton, Mike Klassen, Sandy Garossino and Geoff Meggs for Council. Based on the comments I have received, it would appear that not everyone is as keen as me to have Meggs on Council. So here are some other choices.

I have always been impressed by the dedication of Vision Councillor Heather Deal. I also like her as a person. A biologist who once worked with the David Suzuki Foundation, she strikes me as a very committed person who would be prepared to work collaboratively on a mixed Council. I will be voting for her since I'm hoping and expecting it will be a mixed Council.

Andrea Reimer is a Vision Candidate for whom I also have a high regard. While we have often disagreed on issues, she's been prepared to sit down and discuss our differences. We come from such different worlds. Depending on what happens over the next week, I may well save a vote for her.

I've got to know Raymond Louie a little bit over the years and think he's been an effective councillor. I appreciated the fact that he modified the laneway housing zoning bylaw to allow single storey laneway cottages on deeper single family lots; something I wanted to see. We haven't had many other dealings in recent years but I'll be considering his name when I'm in the voting booth.

I will be voting for Adriane Carr of the Green Party. While I don't know her well, I admire her longstanding commitment to serving the public. Over the years we have met at various planning and sustainability events, since she has a background in these fields. She strikes me as open minded and caring, and I was impressed to learn from a Cambie Street merchant that she was one of the few people who took a genuine interest in the property taxation issues he and other merchants are facing. Ironically, the same person told me Mayor Robertson displayed absolutely no interest in their plight....I say ironically since the Mayor was at one time so publicly associated with these merchants!

I have known NPA candidate Bill McCreey for 35 years. He was a member of TEAM when I arrived in Vancouver in the 70's. He was a good architect in his day, with many innovative ideas. While we haven't always agreed, and I know that he can be argumentative and abrasive at times, he's somebody who would be a good addition to Council. Given that so many decisions relate to architecture and planning, I think it makes sense to have an architect on Council. I'll be voting for him.

There are a number of other strong and qualified NPA candidates. I don't know George Affleck but he has an extensive background in communications and media. Elizabeth Ball has served on Council in the past and is committed to furthering the arts in Vancouver. I'm told she's going to win again! Joe Carangi is a very interesting guy. While he's a lawyer, you wouldn't know it on first meeting. He comes across as 'Joe Average' and fancies himself as the people's candidate. While I think it is important to have professional expertise on Council, maybe it is OK to have someone who just wants to represent the little guy. That's what Joe wants to do.

By all accounts, Ken Charko is an accomplished businessman who has decided to put something back. A number of my acquaintances speak highly of him, but I just don't know him well enough to 'endorse' him at this stage. Hopefully I'll learn more in the last week of the campaign.

Jason Lamarche is not someone I'll be supporting, and not just because of his recent problems over past internet activities. I was put off my his very first video interview and I don't think he's ready for Council.

The last two candidates Francis Wong and Bill Yuen are two very affable and dedicated members of the Chinese community running for the NPA. Bill is a former School Board trustee and Francis has been active in Chinatown. I would like to see them both on Council.

And oh yes, before I forget, like the 'strategic alliance' did in their pamphlet....

Mayor

Suzanne Anton. I know she's not perfect, but none of us are perfect. However, she has a passion and a comfort with people that Mayor Robertson rarely exhibits. She really wants to be Mayor, whereas I often think the people behind Robertson want him to be Mayor more than he wants to be Mayor.

I must say, on a personal level, I find Gregor Robertson to be a very pleasant guy. But he seems vacuous to me. I just can't get a sense of who he is or what he really wants.

Suzanne on the other hand is very clear about what she wants to see happen. I don't always agree with her, but she does listen and is prepared to change her mind. Some have accused her of 'flip-flopping' a bit unfairly, in my opinion. But as a number of media commentators have noted, she has developed quite a bit over the course of the election campaign, and if she wins, I think she will become a good Mayor. I support her unreservedly.

So I hope this is helpful in providing some additional information about the candidates. If you haven't already done so, please check out Part 1 of this posting since it includes the names of those candidates I would most like to see on Council, Park and School Boards. I look forward to your comments.

Friday, November 11, 2011

Today all of us are no doubt remembering family members and friends who fought in one of the wars. I am thinking of my father Sam, who as many of my friends and family will attest, was greatly influenced by his experiences as a Communications Officer for the King's Royal Rifle Corps during World War II.

But first a story about my daughter Georgia. When she was quite young she learned about Rememberance Day at school, and the tragic loss of life during too many wars. That Friday night when my dad came over for dinner she shocked and amused all of us when she asked: "Grandpa, did you die in the War?"

Today, as a recently graduated doctor, she is much more conversant with the difference between life and death!

My dad was not the type of person who would relish fighting with another person. However, as a young man in England, he like so many others, considered it his duty to go off to war. Fortunately, he was put in charge of communications, rather than be compelled to fight on the front lines. But unfortunately, that didn't stop him from being captured in Italy and taken to the Prisoner of War camps in Germany.

While my father was not a particularly provocative sort of person (I acquired this trait from my mother!), for whatever reason he chose not to hide the fact that he was Jewish while in the POW camps. As he often mentioned to my many friends who enjoyed listening to his war stories, this never was an issue until very close to the end of the war when the commander of one particular camp requested that all the Jewish prisoners be gathered in a separate area.

My father's commander then approached the German in charge of the camp and said something to the effect that they knew that what was being contemplated was completely wrong and in violation of the Convention. He added that they all knew the war would soon be over, and if anything happened to the Jewish prisoners, he would ensure that the Camp Commander was charged and punished to the full extent of the law.

As my dad told the story, the Germans backed off and a few weeks later the Camp prisoners were freed by the Americans.

After the War my dad returned to England to discover that his mother had been killed during the bombing of Bristol where they lived. He married and eventually moved to Canada in 1952.

Everyone who knew my father always commented on what a happy, positive person he was. He had a wonderful sense of humour, and rarely had a unkind word about anyone. I often think that while he never achieved great fame or success, he lived a wonderful life because he never really expected to survive the war. As he put it, after the POW camps, everything was gravy!

In his later years he was a proud member of the Shalom Legion and would annually participate in Rememberance Day activities. He died in July 2004 at the age of 92. 'A true gentleman'

Wednesday, November 9, 2011

Since the advanced polls open today, at the urging of my wife whose friends often ask "who's Michael going to vote for?", over the next ten days I plan to share the names of the muncipal candidates that I'm planning to support in Vancouver. In later posts I will complete my list of preferred candidates.

As will be evident from the heading to this post, although I am a failed NPA candidate from the 2008 election, and am assumed by some to wear red, white and blue underwear, in fact I don't feel a particularly strong allegiance to the NPA at all. Indeed, I will be supporting candidates from a number of parties, as well as at least one independent candidate. I believe it is smart to vote for the best candidates in terms of their intelligence, life experience, and willingness to make tough decisions. While some might question why I would support someone with whom I don't always agree, I think it's important to have a balance of views represented on Council. For this reason, I think 'slate voting', especially when the slate tends to vote together on most issues, is for dummies.

So here are some of the candidates I really want to see elected to Vancouver Council, School and Park Board. There are others, who I'll save for a later post.

Park Board:

1. Stuart Mackinnon-Green Party I met Stuart during the last election, and while I don't know him really well, and certainly don't always agree with his positions, I think he's the most decent and dedicated person I know running for public office. He has a challenge, since he hasn't raised much money, and the Greens have been somewhat shunned by Vision. However, I would like to think that people who know him will support him, and his name recognition will help him get elected. Moreover, running for the Park Board under the Green banner seems a natural, doesn't it?

2. John Coupar-NPA I met John during his campaign to save the Bloedel Conservatory. He was very effective and he strikes me as a bright guy with a head on his shoulders who would be a good addition to Park Board.

There are some other very good candidates for Park Board who I'll write about in my next election posts.

School Board:

1. Ken Denike-NPA: It would be a tragedy if Ken did not win. He's a very smart, thoughtful person who brings a great deal of experience to the Board. Given that he survived the 2008 NPA wipe-out, one might assume he's a safe seat. But, nothing should be taken for granted.

2. Sophia Woo and Sandy Sharma-NPA I put these two ladies together since they are both representatives of the 'non-caucasian' population seeking election for the first time. I got to know Sophia last election, and she's a very intelligent person. While she's sometimes difficult to understand at first, don't let that put you off. I have met Sandy on a few occasions and frankly, I would like to see her win because she is an intelligent, South Asian woman who can represent a growing segment of the population with oftentimes particular educational needs.

Council:

1. Geoff Meggs-Vision I think Geoff is the smartest person on Council who's running for re-election. While we've had some heated debates and differences, it would be a shame if he didn't win again. I disagreed with him over his handling of the Olympic Village file, and am not as enthusiastic as he is about removal of the viaducts. However, he has extensive experience in government and politics and I will truly be sad, as a taxpayer, if he doesn't win.

2. Sean Bickerton-NPA I met Sean during the last election, and he's a very intelligent and decent person. He represents a number of constituencies that should have a voice on council, most notably the arts and culture community. While we don't always agree on different issues, we can easily respect our differences. He knows that he has much to learn about many of the matters that come before Council, and politics; I hope he'll get an opportunity to learn on the job!

3. Mike Klassen-NPA I first met Mike when I returned from my Sabbatical and gave a talk on lessons for Vancouver from around the world. He somehow encapsulated what I said, and tried to say very well, and I instantly developed a respect for him. As a co-author of CityCaucus.com he was for all intent and purposes, along with Daniel Fontaine, the 'official opposition' during the past three years. While I often find Mike a bit too partisan and intense, and enjoy him most when he can 'lighten up,' he would be a great addition to Council. And as one former Cabinet Minister recently said to me, he deserves a seat on Council for the excellent job he did leading up to the Olympics on letting people know what was happening around the city. A very community spirited guy.

4. Sandy Garossino-Independent Sandy Garossino, along with Sean Bickerton played a major role in stopping the expanded casino in Vancouver. While I didn't necessarily agree with this at the end, I couldn't help but admire her during the campaign. She's now raising some questions that are uncomfortable for many of us about the role of Asian investment in Vancouver's housing market. She has also proposed a more cautious approach than me with respect to Occupy Vancouver. Anyone who has listened to her will know she's a very intelligent, articulate person with an understanding of the law and business. We don't really know each other well, but people I know who have worked with her think very highly of her. I am hoping she'll be the first independent to be elected to Council in a very long time.

So ...Apologies to any candidate who might lose votes as a result of my 'endorsement'. However, I truly believe you are all very worthy candidates and I hope you will have the support of a sufficent number of voters to win a place on Park and School Board and Council.